APHC010122472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1671/2024 Between: Burle Venkateswarlu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. Y V S S DHARANEESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. C SUBODH The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused in C.C.No.2420 of 2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A of 2 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (for brevity ‘the D.P. Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is father-in-law of the 2nd respondent died on 06.05.2025. Hence, the petition against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is abated. 4. The petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. She is aged about 66 years. The Petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. 5. As seen from the averments of the FIR, the statements recorded by the investigating officer of the 2nd respondent and other prosecution witnesses as per the averments of the charge sheet there are no specific overt acts attributed against petitioner mentioning that the date, time and place of the alleged offence. Even it would be difficult for the learned Trial Court to frame charges without there being any specific instances with date, time and place. If a charge is framed sans the above particulars the charge is a defective one because it disables the accused/petitioners to prove his innocence. 6. The 2nd respondent has de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused which was registered as a case in Crime No.135 of 2018 of Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore under Sections 3 498-A, 315 read with 511 and 120(B) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. 7. The police after thorough investigation deleted the Sections 315 read with 511 and 120(B) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ from the charge sheet. The charge sheet filed only for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. 8. The learned Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 18.09.2019 observing that no prima facie case was made out against the Accused No.5 along with Accused Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate dismissed the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. The allegations sans any material particulars. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana1, at paragraph No.6 held as under: “6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 10. Thus, in K. Subba Rao supra it held that criminal proceedings are ordinarily not interfered with at the interlocutory stage unless there is abuse of process; however, the Court may intervene to secure the ends of justice. In matrimonial and dowry-related cases, distant relatives should not be 1(2018) 14 SCC 452 4 implicated on omnibus allegations without specific instances of their involvement. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra2, at paragraph Nos.29 & 30, held as under: “29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. 30. In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants.” 12. Similarly, in Digambar supra it is observed that if the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even when taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings. In the present case, the allegations do not disclose any specific instance of cruelty to attract Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’, and even the allegation regarding miscarriage, when examined with the doctor’s statement, does not make out a prima facie case against the appellants. 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 5 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad3, at paragraph No.12, held as under: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.” 14. In this manner, in G.V. Rao supra it is ruled that there has been a rise in matrimonial disputes, where minor disagreements often escalate into serious criminal cases, unnecessarily implicating elders who could have facilitated reconciliation. Such litigation should not be encouraged, as prolonged court battles consume years of the parties’ lives instead of allowing them to amicably resolve their differences. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana4, at paragraph No.27, held as under: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. 3(2000) 3 SCC 693 4(2025) 3 SCC 735 6 Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 16. Therefore, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra it is observed that a mere reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, cannot justify criminal prosecution, as courts must guard against sweeping and generalized accusations. Where relatives live separately and no specific role is attributed to them, implicating them would amount to abuse of the process of law. 17. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Boddu Rani v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, at paragraph No.14, held as under: “14. In the backdrop of the legal position discussed supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. Coming to the facts of the present case, a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet, except making casual reference of names of A3 and A4 that after giving birth to the female child, when they visited their house, they used to join A1 to harass the wife, nothing is attributed in specific against them. But coming to the case of A2, there are specific allegations. In that view, it is tenable to quash the crime against A3 and A4 and not against A2.” 18. By relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge in Boddu Rani supra quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are relatives of the husband. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar6, at paragraph Nos.5 and 6, held that ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court, when approached for quashment of criminal proceedings, would 52025 SCC OnLine AP 183 6(2019) 13 SCC 350 7 not appreciate the defence of the accused nor consider the veracity of the documents relied upon by him. Nevertheless, an exception has been carved out in appropriate cases, as held in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries7; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal8; and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley9, that where the document relied upon is a public document or its veracity is not disputed, the same can be considered. 20. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the record and in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is persuaded to hold that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are manifestly vague, omnibus, and bereft of any specific overt act. The factual substratum, even when taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 489-A read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. As observed in Digambar supra, when the uncontroverted allegations fail to prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would amount to a palpable abuse of process, resulting in miscarriage of justice, and therefore warrants interdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS.’ 21. Furthermore, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the judicial caution enunciated in K. Subba Rao supra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra, wherein it was categorically held that distant relatives or family members 7(2011) 15 SCC 207 81992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9(2011) 3 SCC 351 8 cannot be roped in on the basis of sweeping and generalized allegations unsupported by concrete evidence. The present case epitomizes such indiscriminate implication, where the respondent-wife’s grievances, at best, reveal matrimonial discord and incompatibility rather than criminal culpability. In consonance with the dictum in G.V. Rao supra, the Court is duty-bound to prevent the escalation of minor matrimonial skirmishes into protracted criminal litigation that consumes the prime years of the parties. Hence, to secure the ends of justice and prevent the misuse of criminal law, the proceedings in C.C.No.2420 of 2019 are liable to be quashed. 22. On a careful perusal of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 with the Station House Officer, Balajinagar Police Station, the statement of the respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the statements of other witnesses recorded in the course of investigation, and the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that the allegations against Petitioner No.2, the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, and Petitioner No.3, the brother-in-law of Respondent No.2, do not disclose any specific instances regarding the date, time, or place of the alleged offences committed by them. 23. Respondent No.2 has not even alleged the quantity or nature of the additional dowry that was allegedly demanded by the petitioners. Further, Respondent No.2 has failed to provide specific details regarding the date and time on which the petitioners allegedly conspired to abort the pregnancy of Respondent No.2. 9 24. The allegations made by Respondent No.2 are vague, generalized, and sweeping in nature. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate, by order dated 18.09.2019, refused to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 315 read with 511 and 120B of the I.P.C., holding that no prima facie case was made out against Accused No.5. Cognizance was taken only for the offences against Accused Nos.1 to 4, and the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 against Accused No.5 was dismissed. 25. In the absence of specific allegations indicating active involvement of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the criminal proceedings initiated against them deserve to be quashed at the threshold. The allegations leveled by Respondent No.2 are vague, omnibus, and unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized accusations. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a misuse of legal provisions. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.2420 of 2019 (Crime No.135 of 2018 of Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore) pending on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.02.2026 KMS 10 216 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1671 of 2024 Date: 23.02.2026 KMS